ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Differential Prognosis of True Bifurcation Lesions According to Left Main Versus Non-Left Main Location and Treatment Strategy.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Multicenter, Retrospective Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting (COBIS) Registry III
veRy Thin Stents for Patients With Left mAIn or bifurcatioN in Real Life: the RAIN a Multicenter Study
Ultrathin Drug Eluting Stents for Patients With Left-main, bifurcaTion, chRonic totAl Occlusion, or In-stent Restenosis Coronary Lesion in Real Life: the ULTRA a Multicenter Study
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for bifurcation lesions: insights from the DECADE cooperation.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Association between plaque characteristics and side-branch compromise in left main bifurcation lesions after a single-stent crossover technique: insights from an optical coherence tomography study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough true bifurcation lesions are associated with a high risk of procedural complications, the differential prognostic implications of percutaneous coronary intervention for true bifurcations according to lesion location are unclear. This study aimed to identify whether clinical outcomes of true bifurcation lesions differed between left main coronary artery (LM) and non-LM bifurcations and to determine the optimal treatment strategy for subtypes of bifurcation lesions in the current-generation drug-eluting stent era.
methodsThe ULTRA-BIFURCAT (Combined Insights From the Unified COBIS III, RAIN, and ULTRA Registries) was created by merging 3 bifurcation-dedicated registries from Korea and Italy. For this, 6548 patients treated with bifurcation lesions were stratified by lesion location and subtype. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) at 800 days.
resultsIn patients with an LM bifurcation, those with a true bifurcation had a significantly higher risk of a MACE than those with a nontrue bifurcation (20.2% versus 13.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11-1.86];
conclusionsClinical outcomes were worse for LM true bifurcation lesions than non-LM true bifurcation lesions. A provisional 1-stent strategy should be the preferred approach for treating LM nontrue bifurcation lesions. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03068494, NCT03544294, and NCT05205148.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.